Sunteți pe pagina 1din 13

SAFETY COCKPIT COMMITTEE

REPORT OF T.R.STANLEY, P.ENG., CONSULTANT


Grand Hotel des Bains, Riccone, Italy
Thursday, October 22, 2009
T.R. Stanley Engineering
th

1645 East 29 Avenue, Vancouver, B.C., CANADA V5N 2Y7


Phone 604-873-2078 Fax 604-873-2018 e-mail tstanley@axionet.com

ENGINEERING FOR THE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY

Abstract
This year at the APBA OPC National Championships two incidents occurred where the
canopy was pushed down into the capsule and became locked into position so that the
driver could not be removed from the boat. This report provides some details of one of
the accidents and provides some analysis results that give some insight to how the canopy
reacts to the impact of water during an accident.
The second part of the paper revisits the question of whether putting a steel cage inside
the capsule is an approach that needs to be followed further.
Canopy Snap Through
Introduction
This year I attended the APBA National Championships for OPC. We had two incidents
that I hadn't seen before in eighteen years of racing using capsules, although I understand
that it has happened before. In both incidents the boat blew over and luckily landed right
side up. I say luckily because during the incident the capsule canopy was impacted from
above and was pressed down past the rear lip of the supporting capsule. This had the
effect of locking the lid closed. I believe the rescue crew had to use a crowbar to open
the lid and extract the driver. Some years ago, Bob Wartinger and I discussed this
possibility, but felt that it was a remote possibility, however, twice in one day brought it
to my attention.

Incident Details
The incident that I have been able to document the best occurred during the SST 60
National Championships of the APBA. The boat was built by Pugh and the canopy was
of a pretty standard design used on most tunnel boats in North America. It has a
sandwich composite construction with a lexan windshield. The canopy had the widely
used aluminum plate restraints on the inside to prevent the canopy from slipping over the
capsule on the lower edge. The supporting area of the capsule above the drivers head
was an extension of the inner skin of the capsule. While I was there, I was actually
watching a different boat, but I believe the boat rolled over and landed right side up.
Fortunately photographer F. Pierce Williams was there and took these photos. Mr.
Williams kindly gave me permission to use these photos.

The rescue crew found the canopy locked closed but had the tools available to pry the
canopy open. Note that the aluminum restraining plate is now outside the capsule. When
the boat was brought ashore I was able to examine it. The inner skin of the capsule had
split from the core at a point directly above the drivers head as shown below:

The canopy itself has a crack in it above the drivers head and the windshield is broken.

It has a delamination of the skins from the core. The crack is shown above. The
aluminum pieces on the inside of the canopy were not bent.
Simulations
A proper analysis of the canopy/capsule system would require a complex non-linear finite
element analysis of the system. However I was able to do a simplified analysis on the
canopy and capsule separately to get some insight into how the canopy reacts under load.
I restrained the canopy in various ways to simulate what might happen as the accident
progresses. For the materials for the model I used a composite layup that I have used in
models before. The layup comes from an actual panel submitted for testing by an boat
builder (identity unknown to me). In former analysis I have done using this layup the
simulation matched the physical testing results done for the UIM. For the windshield
material I used 3/8 thick (9.5 mm) GE Lexan 101 that was used in a study I did for Bob
Wartinger regarding windshield thickness.

The undeformed shape of the canopy looks like this:

The canopys reaction to a load from the water impacting it from above and from in front
depends somewhat on whether the aluminum restraining plates slip off the capsule. I
modeled both cases. If the plates hold, the top of the capsule squishes down and the aft
side of the canopy angles vertically getting ready to slip over the capsule support at the
top. The sides roll outward above the plates so that the plates can slip over the side of the
capsule just as in the photo from the race.

Once the canopy has slipped over the supporting capsule areas it just wants to flatten out
and come down on the driver.

The capsule itself also deforms under a similar load as applied to the canopy. The area
above the drivers head gets pushed down and gets pushed outward just above the side of
the cockpit opening:

The bulge outward will assist the canopy to roll outwards as well around the aluminum
restraint plates.

Solutions
Newer boats are addressing this problem, notably DAC, Baba and Seebold. The second
incident at the APBA Nationals was on an older DAC, and I was told that this had
happened before on older DAC boats. The newest DAC design has a complete different
concept with the windshield more integral with the capsule itself. These DAC boats have
a composite rib going between the top and bottom of the windshield located near the
front corners of the windshield for additional strength. There is still some concern
whether the lid, which is now smaller will snap through.

Baba has made a two piece windshield with the strengthening bar and in addition has
made the overlap on the supporting area of the capsule/canopy much longer, several
times as long.

Seebold as well has added the strengthening bar and reinforcing ribs both under the top of
the canopy and under the windshield between the top and bottom of the windshield. He
has also made the restraining clips longer and integral with the layup of the canopy.

These three builders have improved their designs, but I believe that more improvements
can be made. I did do a quick model with reinforcement at the aft end of the canopy as
shown below:

The improvement was negligible.


Some inboard boats have used mechanical latches on canopies that opened to the side.
The long hinge used on the side would prevent that side from slipping out. However, I
have seen these canopies jam mechanically, both on the racecourse and in the capsule
training pool. In one case the boat had to be towed in upside down, lifted out of the water
by crane, upside down, and then the canopy cut open with the jaws of life. Luckily the
driver had a big air bottle and was unhurt.
The design work done to improve the snap through problem will also improve the
probability for preventing spinal injuries of drivers. That is, strengthening the capsule
and canopy above the drivers head will help to prevent the canopy from being forced
down and putting a load on the drivers spine even if he has the required head clearance.
As designs of canopies are improved to prevent them from flopping around during an
accident and to offer better protection to the drivers, the probability of the canopy
snapping through and getting jammed under the capsule will increase. This is because
the canopies are being held closer to the capsule sides.
Conclusion
This year canopies got locked closed on two occasions during racing at the APBA
Nationals because of water impact to the top of the canopy. Both boats were examined
shortly after being brought ashore. Both canopies suffered damage to the composite

around the windshield. Simulations show that when pressure is applied to the top of the
canopy it deforms in ways that overcome restraints and allow the canopy to snap
through the restraints to become locked under the top of the capsule.
I do not believe a rule can be written that would ensure that this snap through
phenomenon will not happen. I offered this section of the report to encourage boat
builders to be aware of the problem and to design canopies accordingly.
________
Steel Cages Revisited
Introduction
In 2007 I presented information to the Safety Cockpit Committee regarding the
installation of steel cages inside safety cockpits in order to improve the safety of the
cockpit. At the time I was reluctant to endorse the use of the steel cage. This year I had
further discussions with Sonny Hawkins regarding their use. In addition I attended the
Safety Seminar held in Seattle. Ron Jones Jr. made a presentation on capsule
construction at this seminar that was very good. I decided to evaluate the steel cage
inside the capsule under different loading conditions than previously.
Simulation
I used the same model as was used previously. Instead of loading the capsule to simulate
a collision, I applied a distributed load such as would happen with water impact, both
from the side and above. The distributed side load without a cage is shown below:

The same load was applied to the capsule with the cage:

The cage itself showed the following stresses:

The stress in the cage is high, about 21,000 psi, but still below the yeild point, so it will
recover its shape.

A simulation was also done using a vertical load on the top of the capsule the same load
as was used in the capsule/canopy study.

The shape still shows the bulging of the capsule above the side of the cockpit, even with
the cage. The model assumes the bonding between the cage and the capsule is perfect, so
that if it is not perfect, the capsule will bulge more.
Weight Considerations
In my conversations with Sonny Hawkins, it was agreed that it was undeniable that the
steel cages have worked well in the drag boats. Ron Jones Jr. has had success with his
inboard hydros with cages. As well the offshore boats often have a large wide canopy
that lack support in the middle from underneath.
On the other hand, since the original report was made, I have heard numerous reports of
the difficulty with coping with the additional weight of the crash boxes in less powerful
boats than F1. A steel roll cage would be heavier. In the case of the inboard hydros and
the drag boats, the balance and lift centers are different than a tunnel boat. The cage is
forward of the sponson and the weight is helping lift the transom, whereas the tunnel boat
has to lift the weight of the cage. Im sure the extra weight still has to be accounted for in
the aerodynamic lift and the propeller design.
Conclusion
The conclusion of my revisit to the steel cages inside the capsule and whether they
provide a safety advantage is that it depends. Where the power and design of the boat
can handle the weight, along with accidents that are primarily single boat accidents, then
the cage can have a good role to play. Where accidents are often collisions between

boats, and where the weight is difficult to cope with, then we need to look to other
solutions to make improvements to the capsule construction. With offshore boats with
their large capsules, more investigation or more experience is required to see which
approach would be the most effective.
Home UIM Presentations Engineering Studies Non-Racing Projects Analysis
Services
Patent Links Boat Racing Links
About us

S-ar putea să vă placă și